Should We Abolish the Sex Offender Registry? A Debate. 

I don't like the concept of a convicted criminal who served their time being half free. If they are dangerous they should be in jail. If they served their time then they should have all their rights returned. No registries. No voting limits. No travel limits. No gun limits. You are free or you are in jail. Nothing in between.

So she accepts that after 15 years the repeat rate of sex offenders is between 1-5%. But because that number is above 0 she thinks we need the registry for adults. However she believes that children can do a sexual offense and by time they are the magical age of 18 they will change. I do not understand her logic.

"If it protects one child" ... that's not enough reason to ruin other people's lives. I have children and I refused to look at the registry because it's both unfair to the people on the registry, and there is plenty of data that shows they don't work.

The woman that doesn't actually know the definition of recidivism undermines her credibility as a result. She's also full of the condescension and self-righteousness that characterisizes the people on her side of this issue. They also act as if they are defending children and so do not need to even address the abuse of registries by those that maintain and use them. I was disappointed the moderator let the woman For Registries refuse to address non child-abuse offenses and general registy abuse in in these cases. She kept insisting that she was not addressing those negative aspects and was only interested in defending children - which is not the subject of the debate. If she wants to defend her position on those grounds she needs to show that they do in fact accopmlish that goal, and that those results outweigh the negative aspects of registires and thier abuse. Also, I was disappointed that the point alluded to by the moderator was glossed over. To paraphrase it: Would you rather know if a convicted child-murder, or a child-abuser lives next door, and why does our society register one but not the other. Why is so much energy and social capital put into doing the one and not the other.

Marci doesn't know the definition of recidivism. Someone with multiple victims is not recidivism, someone who does it again after conviction is recidivism.

People will hate and curse sex offenders, until one of their family members or loved ones ends up on the list(which is not difficult nowadays).

What she didn't mention is that nearly all sex offenders do not have previous convictions of any kind. Coaches, teachers, pastors, etc. How does the registration stop that?

Marci argued from a position of emotion, fear and virtue signaling. Emily argued from a position of facts, research and reasoning.

Emily Horowitz; her position was to make changes to the registry. Emily did a truly outstanding job of describing, documenting, and summarizing the plight of those on the registry. She makes a strong case was overwhelming and could be used to pattern this argument in other forums. The truth is that the re-offense rate is about the lowest of any category of offender. Keep in mind that registration laws are based on fear, not on evidence. There are also a special set of laws for former registrants that continue punishment AFTER offenders have already paid their price in the harsh realities of jail, prison, probation, and parole. They create a new population of deprived Americans whose life, education, earning-potential, reputation are denied for the rest of their lives, and that often is seen again and again in broken relationships, homelessness, poverty and entry into recriminalization.

People get out of prison for armed robbery and even murder. Pretty sure they are equally dangerous to the community and yet still no registry exists for these crimes

It baffles me that Marci attempted to win a debate with an appeal to emotions to a crowd of libertarians.

The registry needs to be completely abolished.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” ― Adolf Hitler

1:02:00 If it's such a severe harm for former CP models to know that others may ongoingly be viewing their images, then why are many of these same people being _mandatorily_ reminded of this fact every time it's confirmed to have happened? This is a system that thrives on manufacturing victimization rather than preventing it.

I thought the debate was about the sex offender registry, not child abusers. Isn't there a difference? Saying all sex offenders are child abusers is an emotional tactic.

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE to violating Constitutional Rights. Parents need to raise there kids to avoid predators, not pay the government to do it for them.

Marci keeps saying "as a matter of science" like that's enough to be scientific. She never sites a study or data just states that it exists. Her argument is completely emotional. She made a terrible attempt to help me defend keeping registrations. Emily did a much better representing her views. She actually sited studies and defined her words appropriately.

If these offenders are a threat to the public, why release them?

Here is another thing no one really talked about.. the kids that these laws were named after had 3 things in common... all were kidnapped, murdered and raped except for Adam Walsh. Adam's body was never discovered, the man that came forth as his killer couldn't even describe the boy correctly, where he said he buried the body and tho they found a boys head in a canal in Florida ( his disappearance was in LA) no autopsy was conducted or blood samples to verify it was Adam Walsh. But yet they were all kidnapped, murdered and raped and ONLY the sex aspect was introduced to be monitored by the government, not murder nor kidnapping. This goes way beyond legislation, and more like the Nazi and the classification of jews. This is the new way to gather a bunch of individuals in a similar system without it being an attack on a group and an ethnicity which is governed by world laws.... so it's basically running under the radar as a Gustapo style of classification of people they can later revok their passports, their travel, their ability to escape this country... America is pushing other countries to push for registration hard to make this a global issue of compliance and monitoring. When will it end? When this one world system will take all of these individuals out of the world just like back in 1941

People who support the registry are often tripping over their own contradictions because the registry was not created with sound logic. Emotions, and of course politics, are the reason it exists. This debate is from 6 years ago and unfortunately little has changed with regards to abolishing it... and in some states it's even getting a bit worse. We're not going to logic our way out of this one. Either find a way to address this politically, or this will simply continue.

A 150 victims. If each person on the sex offender actually had 10 victims there wouldn't be a single human being on this planet that hadn't been raped or molested.

Thumbs up just for having the debate

Marci Hamilton is everything I don’t like about so-called advocacy debating. She’s fundamentally dishonest in both her argument and argumentation. (Irrelevant of one’s conclusions and beliefs on the topic, Ms Hamilton is by no means an honest broker, even of her own position.) importantly, Ms Hamilton is there to defend sex offender registries, as they are in law. Challenged, her essential response is two-fold. First, she shifts the goal posts and resorts to the emotional extreme of “only here for the children.” That ignores her brief, and is thus a rather acute instance of issue substitution and ignoring the issue. Second, she then implies those who oppose her views are disingenuous liars and supporters of child rape. I can’t stand this type of gross posturing. It brooks no discussion, and participates in no search for truth. Ultimately, it is egotistical and destructive; more interested in winning than being right, for the right reasons. How vile.

I think if someone is still a risk they should be in jail. Once they are out of jail they need the liberties of a free person to be able to integrate back into society. If you don't let these people integrate your almost forcing them to continue to commit crimes to survive. If its shown that serious sex offenders don't change their ways then they should all be imprisoned for life.

Fact: sexual offenses have the lowest rate of reoffense BY FAR (6% within 10 years vs. 46.8% on average for all offense categories.) Fact: the crimes that inspired the registry's creation would not have been prevented by its existence. Fact: risk of non-sexual reoffense is greatly increased BECAUSE OF the registry; in other words, it causes more crime by intentionally destabilizing the lives of offenders post-release. Fact: it is impossible to memorize enough of the faces or names on the list to be of significant value if it had any value at all. Fact: it's blatantly unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court worked around this by claiming it is "regulatory, not punitive" and therefore the Constitution does not apply. There are no valid arguments for having it. None. All arguments in favor are appeals to emotion or refuted by hard facts as reported by federal and state departments of justice/corrections. Anyone arguing in favor of criminal registries of any sort has no idea what they are talking about because all of the facts are extremely counter to that position.

Both made strong arguements. However the fact stands that yes multiple supreme court rulings have been made that have declared multiple aspects of the sex offender registry as unconstitutional. Therefore that alone shows that legislatures are not fixing the issues correctly

The best way to get the registry reformed would be to put all people that want the registry and that are in support of it on the registry ( them and there family members ) and let them see the effects..and see how fast the laws change..

Emily Horowitz; Chair of the Sociology and Criminal Justice Department at St. Francis College; her position to make changes to the registry. Emily did a truly outstanding job of describing, documenting, and summarizing the plight of those on the registry. Her remarks in support of making significant changes in the registry were impressive and overwhelming. The truth is that the re-offense rate is about the lowest of any category of offender. Keep in mind that registration laws are based on fear, not on evidence. There are also a special set of laws for former registrants that continue punishment AFTER offenders have already paid their price in the harsh realities of jail, prison, probation, and parole. They create a new population of deprived Americans whose life, education, earning-potential, reputation are denied for the rest of their lives, and that often is seen again and again in broken relationships, homelessness, poverty and entry into recriminalization.

"It is very rare for there to be a false claim about child sex abuse" -- she lost me there. How could we even know that? Furthermore, I've heard far too many stories about exactly that for me to dismiss it as a non issue. Honestly what I think is probably rare is for people who have been falsely accused, convicted and subsequently essentially socially exiled from civil society to be acquitted after the fact if evidence supporting their innocence comes to light. And even if we are talking about a small minority (and I'm skeptical of that) - it is just as much of a tragedy for one innocent man to be forever condemned as a sex offender as it is for a sex offender to go unpunished by the state. People who genuinely think ruining the lives of innocents is a price we simply must pay for the sake of a system that can't even prove itself to be particularly effective are just so hard for me to sympathize with. And then she goes on to say we don't care about children because they don't vote and don't have lobbies? That adults prefer adult interests, and children get ignored? What world is she living in? Children are routinely used as political cudgels, often invoked even when the issue at hand has nothing to do with children... "Think of the children" has been the very effective argument for a massive variety of state policies, interventions and programs... And then she cites that utterly bullshit statistic of 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they're eighteen. More nonsense... It's really crazy that we're at this point where very obviously doctored, biased and specific-conclusion-seeking "statistics" are cited as if they are objective studies of the reality. So far gone are we that we don't even have to examine the study to know it's bullshit -- it's exactly the same kind of rhetoric that's used to justify anti-sex work laws. Just as with the child abuse lobby, the anti-prostitution (or as they fallaciously call it, 'human trafficking') lobby are masters at making emotional appeals and essentially lying to people. You wouldn't know it, but "human trafficking" is incredibly rare in America, at least as most Americans understand that term. Even 'pimps' are a bygone phenomenon, but there's a massive interest in invoking the evils and tragedies of "human trafficking" so often we'll have cases where a prostitute *employs* a bodyguard or a driver to *help her* as she meets her clients. To keep her safe. But LE and the justice system pounce on arrangements like this and make them fit into the false perception that female sex workers are usually forced into the work and that any men working with her must be the "pimp" or the "human trafficker" even though it's far more common in the modern world in 2018 for prostitutes to simply give portions of their profits to people they've hired to provide them with physical backup. And then that driver/bodyguard will be charged with some massive felony that could put him away for life, and the 'victim' who was employing him won't. Frankly it all plays into this pretty sexist idea that women have no agency and are very easily manipulated and exploited by any man that's evil enough to try. So many people just refuse to believe that there are women that would voluntarily engage in the incredibly lucrative and constantly in-demand trade of prostitution, so they delude themselves with all these wild ideas of "human trafficking", kidnapped girls being drugged and forced into sex slavery, pimps abusing and emotionally manipulating their prostitutes... I'm not saying these things don't happen, and I expect there are places in the world where they are actually quite common, but certainly not in America in 2018. It's more than just an anomaly in the States, in this day and age it's practically unheard of. We can't really know the truth of the matter, but I wouldn't be surprised if well over 99% of the prostitutes in this country aren't working 'for' anybody, and as I mentioned the men that might be involved in the operation are usually working for the prostitutes themselves. The worst part is LE knows this, but scare mongering about human trafficking and sex slavery is titillating to idiot voters so all sorts of minor politicians around the country make the issue part of their campaign platform. You'd think the fact that nobody anywhere has heard of or knows anybody who's been sold into "sex slavery" in this country, and yet people talk about it like it's a real thing that could easily happen to anybody's daughter. I mean people need to think about this for a second - if there was even one shred of real evidence that with any kind of regularity there was an organization enslaving women in the USA it would immediately receive national attention and outrage of the highest degree. The cases where they press charges that were meant to prosecute the fantasy situation they often describe are usually cases involving nothing close to what the average person imagines when they think of "human trafficking" or "sex slavery". Again, usually we're just talking about prostitutes that might share capital and work with each other in the interest of staying safe, perhaps some Johns that were abusive and stepped over the line, men that are involved in their operation in one way or another (if they're lucky they find some drug dealer that provides drugs to various prostitutes and they can easily paint him as some sort of sex-slave-master), and usually quite simply the presence of drug abuse and drug addiction which is obviously fairly common among sex workers. They then take these elements, maybe an anecdote here and there, and weave these fantasies to then feed to the public. Although even then they rarely publicize these cases simply because anybody looking closely enough can see that "human trafficking" isn't exactly what they've been told it is. I digress, but my point is this - it's so obvious that scaring the public into thinking nefarious and pervasive systems of abuse are in place such that we need to shovel money towards law enforcement and programs like the sex offender registry. It's no surprise that they'll doctor statistics, lie about the results of their policies and re-define and misuse words so as to give the public the wrong impression of what's actually going on. I don't think the sex offender registry has ever been about protecting anybody, or at least that's not the primary motivation of those that know how it works but continue to insist it remains in place. It's always been about making people "feel" safe with policies that superficially sound righteous. It doesn't matter if they work or not. It gets emotional people to feel righteous, and that in and of itself is more than enough to justify all kinds of terrible policy to many many people. All that said though, I thought Hamilton's arguments were surprisingly weak. I think the sex offender registry is both ineffective, possibly counterproductive and a grave injustice. But even I think I could argue the point better than her. That she thought saying something like "we don't care about the children - children can't vote and don't have lobbies - adult interests take precedent - who's going to look after the kids?" was an effective or even remotely believable argument says a lot about her position and how weak it is. And yet I doubt if the sex offender registry will ever really be abolished. I suspect that model will just be transferred over to other things - like the hate speech registry for example. Watch -- it'll be here in no time.

Should be a case by case basis. Some locals here were both put on the offender list for the rest of their lives for having sex under a blanket at the beach... Not quite the same level of crime as a serial rapist, but the same list. Also, are they dangerous? They should still be in Jail. If not, no registry needed.

Criminals will find a way to commit their crimes. A registry will not deter true criminals.

Please abolish this stupid sex offender registry. It is unconstitutional.

Why doesn't the pro registry woman cite to any alleged data? Her arguments appear to be based on belief only.

Literally the first three seconds of this debate tell you exactly everything you need to know. Calm and rational Emily "Yeah these registries don't work." Dumbass Marci "ThAt'S rIdIcUlOuS" This comment section gives me a ton of hope. Hopefully everyone will soon wake up and realize that these registries are absolute garbage and should have never happened at all.

I wasn't sure at the start, but Marci's appeal to emotion and Emily's logic set my views towards removing the registry.

In the state of texas the law says all you need for a conviction is for someone to say you committed an offence.

We need to get it added in civil suits in order to get it abolished it’s not a problem until it a problem for them and there donors

Marci's message is no forgiveness. I'll remember that the next time someone commits a traffic infraction by pulling out into an intersection in front of me. Imagine that. I can get away with murder because someone makes a mistake which we have all made. I'll just put the pedal to the metal. I'll impact the airbag and walk away. Perhaps we should all think like Marci. As a matter of fact, perhaps I should practice setting motorists up. Every two or so years I kill someone, collect the insurance for damages, and get a new ride. Brilliant! Why didn't I think of this before. Of course, I'm not as well educated as Marci. She's so smart. Thank you Marci. You are an inspiration.

It's quite bizarre that Hamilton says privacy isn't a constitutional right. That was precisely the basis of _Roe v. Wade_ (derived from _Griswold v. Connecticut_ ), which was in effect at the time of this debate.

This appears to be a second punishment for a conviction. Either increase their jail time until they are no longer a serious threat, or let them attempt to rebuild a life. We do this with all convicted criminals, but double down on this one type of crime, which includes a very wide variety of offenders.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a registry in principle as a method to vet potential babysitters. But current registries need to go, and in practice I'm skeptical we can make one that works. First a registry needs to be seen as an additional punishment. Therefore it needs to be something a judge inflicts during sentencing, not something that's automatic for a given crime. It also needs to be something a judge can remove if the situation warrants it. But the main issue with registries is the automatic addition for certain convictions, so much as the ever expanding list of crimes that will put you on the list. A 19 year old having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend should NEVER result in being on a registry.

NOTICE HOW SHE ALWAYS TARGETS MEN!!

Emily Horowitz should have asked Marci Hamilton this question. "What if your son, or daughter, or someone you loved deeply committed a sex crime, how would you feel about their situation, or them, would you still have the same stance?" In my opinion, probably not.

I still don't understand why they were only talking about pedophiles or juvenile victims when sex offense registries include adult victims. Some 85% of sexual violence victims are 18 and up.

the only other nation that has sex offender registry is the uk, and even that is limited to police. no more sex offender registry and sex offenders shouldnt be barred from the internet.

Marci is extremely rude and patronizing.

Tell me evidence that the registry prevented another sex crime. Dont try to tug on my heart strings by diverting the conversation to child sex crimes. Marcy had no credible argument. Emily brought plenty of data, who compiled the said data and was clearly the winner.

35":55 I love this moderator. He just won the debate for Emily.

Marcy Hamilton; to support the registry. Marcy, you used Larry Nasser for some of your conclusions. Yet, Larry committed his crimes before being caught; he was never jailed and never on the registry. Your argument was sometimes based on the high number of crimes committed by offenders before arrest. The worthwhile debate was that after serving jail for crimes committed, was a registry necessary in order to assure safety of children? Then you reaffirmed Emily’s argument that family members and friends are most often the offender, Boy Scout leaders or Priests, not strangers on a sex registry. You argued that offenders start with child porn, but you are wrong to assume that all persons that view child porn also become violent offenders. Emily effectively gave evidence that those released from jail do not repeat sex offenses in high numbers. The low number is evidence that a registry is not necessary. You wrongly said that there is no effective treatment for adult offenders, but the low offender statistics after release show that there must be. You proposed ensuring a high visibility for offenders, but you show no consideration of how those after release might regain their lives back, repair relationships, earn a living, and have some quality of life as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence as inalienable rights of life. You repeatedly made arguments about registrants that are sexually violent, but you ignored that most on the registry are non-violent. Remember, persons who urinate in the woods are guilty of a sex offense and many are on the registry. Emily made the point that there are existing laws in place to effectively deal with repeat offenses. You continually came back to the overriding need to protect the children. We will not dispute this fact, but it is still interesting to note that Hitler wrote in Mein Kompf, “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any deprivation.”

My offence happened almost 30 years ago, I did 5 years in prison, went from a moderate risk down to a low risk for reoffending. I still register every year and go report any status change. I pay for this everyday of my life until I'm dead. As recently as a few weeks ago I lost my job due to my past even though they knew about it at hiring over 2 years ago. I'm in my mid 50's and finding jobs is hard enough without my past. Not sure what I'm going to do job wise. Please pray for me. Thank you.

For someone that freely refers to ATSA, Marci's belief that you can't treat offenders is pretty irritating. She also makes this debate very personal...she clearly sees Emily as someone she needs to attack rather than discuss the issue.

Marci's alternative facts, and alarmism are painful to listen to and a waste of time. She shifts the bar and goal posts wildly, and brushes aside whole swathes of the terrain in her appeals to emotion and popular culture references. What Emily's arguments lack in comparative polish, they more than make up for in substance, and she defends her facts courageously. Was this a rigged match? Or a tootsie roll well deserved?

this woman is on drugs, 96 percent of all sex offences are by family or close friends and by new offenders. most offenders are either minors or feel safe in the place of their crime. Emotion is the reason for the most of the laws.. if you take emotion out then you have no registry

Sex offender registry is counterproductive inhumane, unjust and life ruining. No matter what crime someone has committed once he/she has paid their debt to society by serving their sentence in jail they should be able to start off new law abiding life

Yes the public sex offender registry needs to be abolished and made private only accessible to law enforcement officers.

I can't help but feel like Marci was woefully unprepared for this debate. Emily is citing specific studies and cases, and Marci keeps responding with "non-specific experts and scientists disagree with that, think of the children." Then the statement that adults look after their own and don't advocate for children is absolutely preposterous. The fact that the sex offender registry exists and is so difficult to reform is proof of that, no politician wants to be the one that proposes a bill to lessen the restrictions of the sex offender registry because the attack ads their opponents would run write themselves. Then whenever someone tried to bring up instances of adult victims she dismissed it because according to her the strongest arguments are with the children. I think that also disproves that adults aren't advocating strongly for children and disagree entirely that there are stronger arguments when kids are involved. I think when you talk about child victims it is vastly more difficult to be unemotional and look at the argument itself on its own merits. Raping someone is appalling regardless of their age, if your argument sounds bad if the victim is an adult maybe it is a weak argument that relies on emotion more than facts. If the sex offender registry reduces recidivism and you can prove that, cite specific studies and cases. Regarding the statutes of limitations it appears that most states either have no statute of limitations when the crime is has a violent element to it or against a minor and states that do not appear to have exceptions to the statutes of limitations when DNA evidence is present.

The children & other family members of people on the registry suffer greatly: homelessness, poverty, assault & shame. What is their crime? There needs to be support for family members. What about those who reform especially thise who are on the registry from a youthful offense. There is no way to rehabilitate one’s life if they remain. on the registry for decades. The laws about who & for how long need to be registrants need to be reformed. Those who are guilty of viewing these images should receive priority for being removed from the registry receive ongoing treatment & who do not re-offend over several years. Don’t throw low level offenders away for what they might do. I believe people can heal.

"There are children as young as 9 on the registry." Wrong. Try young as 4. Also children with autism as young as 5 like in Chattanooga, TN. I believe due to public outcry the boy was taken off but I am not sure. Everything is hush-hush now.

If u want them to be stable let them have the rights back to work vote and housing. so they can be stable. Keep politicks out of it.

We are doing a terrible job! We are not finding sex offenders. She literally admitted to it herself. This is fear mongering.

It dose not matter how bad of a crime it may be, the constitution ensures due process. Marcy if you do not like that, get out of the USA.

It annoys the heck out of me that Marci continues to evade genuine questions of conflated crime: not all sex crimes are crimes against children, but almost all sex crimes are reported and on the registry. Someone urinating in an alley or two people having sex in public are in no way the same risk to children as someone who sexually abused a child or someone who has illegal sexualized photos of children

I was a minor that was abused by a minor. He grabbed me, and made me touch a girl why she was looking the other way. I used to want to do aggressive things to him. After years I learned my response was normal. I have let go of things. I think rapists should go to prison, but when they get out they should not be further punished.

15:40 It's interesting she chooses to quote Ken Lanning. In his report to the FBI on child pornography, he wrote: "Child victims who, for example, simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to the offender's home are troubling. It confuses us to see the victims [sic] in child pornography giggling or laughing." He goes on to observe that children in CP are often being treated better by those who make it than they would be if they were back with the parents they ran away from -- this was in 1994, before "child pornography" came to consist primarily of selfies taken by kids with no adult even present, and often at their own initiative. Similarly, Harris Mirkin, who like Lanning had legal permission to examine these materials for research purposes, noted, "Most of the actual acts depicted by the young models in child pornography are legal... the smiles and playfulness are often in hundreds of photographs of the same models, and giggles are ubiquitous in the films." Mirkin, Harris (2009). "The Social, Political, and Legal Construction of the Concept of Child Pornography," Journal of Homosexuality, 56(2), pp. 233-267. What's true of those who make CP is true of pedophiles and hebephiles more generally. They love kids, don't want to make them suffer, and rarely do so by any objective measure. What makes does make some kids suffer is the societal gaslighting that tells them there's something wrong with them until they deny their own positive lived experience in order to assimilate to the hegemonic cult doctrine defining them as "victims."

51:00 she claims 2% of America, or 6 MILLION Americans are sex offenders. Yet only 900,000 are convicted and on registration. Where does she get this number from? She's just making sensational statements

A major issue now, is law enforcement is all about putting as many people on the registry as possible. A guy I worked with was given a laptop computer that had porn on it. He didnt have a use for it and gave it to his kids friend. Now he is registered for distributing adult material to a child. If someone robs a store and tells the clerk "dont move" not allowing someone to move under their free will is kidnapping and all kidnapping charges must be registered. Someone takes a piss in the woods but someone else see's them, guess what. They are putting children as young as 14 years old on it for child porn because they sent a naked selfie. Kids sexting and taking photos of themselves and getting caught with this at anytime during their lifespan is a possibility. There was a recent case where someones girlfriend wanted revenge on her man. She had her daughter send a provacitive photo to him , then turned him in. Well she got caught but both are registered now as the boyfriend was in posession. None of these are true sex crimes. They dont involve a creeper jacking his junk in the shawdows, there was no sexual arousal by the parties. When government muddies up the waters like this the registry looses effectiveness. I feel its all about tracking people and generating income from people for life. Put your violent offenders on it. The ones handing out free candy, raping, exposing(on purpose) etc. Victimless crimes should not count. Just my 2 cents worth.

What about people who take deals even though they are not guilty. Speak on that older lady

Two things that disappointed me is Emily did not speak of the fact that crimes like spanking your child (when considered abusive) or kidnapping someone is considered a sex crime in most states and the fact that sex crimes do not have the same protections and requirements-especially dealing with evidence-to prove guilt as every other crime. With sex crimes you do not have to have witnesses or DNA. You do not have to prove guilt, only that it MIGHT have happened. That is civil law not criminal law which is how the courts have been getting away with ruling for the registry in the past. This recently changed to the registry is administrative in nature and in administrative law very rarely are their any criminal aspects or sanctions. Courts started ruling more often that even in civil cases criminal sanctions can, and often do, be ordered and are strongly enforced. All this while the statutes plainly state it is criminal by stating usually in addition to which is how the courts are overruling the ex post facto argument (along with being civil but ex post fact covers civil as well thus the administrative card). You do not have to have a victim-especially with cp. The person can refuse to testify or file charges but the state can and usually will press charges with or without consent. Too often the state (and feds) will coerce or outright threaten the witness and/or victim(s) into a statement. Not knowing age or intellectual level is not a defense in most states. And, most importantly, those accused are already considered guilty and must prove their innocence. I do not know how many times I have spoken with people and have seen with my own eyes defense counsel hanging their client out to dry and/or not doing their job because the presumed innocence ruling of our criminal courts is watered down to almost non existence with sex crimes.

I think it should because it's anti-American once a person served. thre time they should not keep going on being beat like a dead horse. so abolish the sex offender registry anything else is anti-American.....

Marci: A social scientist will tell you that pedophiles do not stop preying on children... Emily: First of all, I'm talking about people convicted of sex offences, you can call them whatever you want. These are human beings who are convicted of sex offences... Big red flag here, Marci is using an emotionally charged phrase like "pedophile" to label an entire group of offenders despite knowing that many of them perpetrated against adults. She's completely misused the phrase Pedophile solely because of the emotional charge it carries and is being deliberately deceitful. The audience also boiled down sex offenders to pedophiles vs. "Romeo and Juliet" and completely overlook a much more nuanced and vast spectrum of criminal behaviors.

Sex offenders can change it has been proven over and over again but the world is blind An eye for an eye would make the world blind. - Gandhi and it has Use logic over emotions people

If anything the registry might actually increase recidivism as registrants have no incentive to want to reform themselves

35:20 Hamilton says sex offenses have to be treated differently because kids can't see what's coming. Whereas they can when they're targeted by a mugger or an arsonist? Hello?

It's not a debate the facts are there or are not. I love how much people are in denial when reality doesn't fit a predetermined or socially constructed narrative.

we need more catagories for offenders and not grouped so tightly together. What about registry for murders? lifetime registry makes it mostly impossible for offenders to be productive citizens. Look at the suicide rate among offenders. Double or triple jeopardy? We need to follow evidence not feelings

46:15 Do sex offender registries work? Absolutely not.

I would like to see this debate redone with Emily and someone that uses facts (if possible). Marci was not intelligently strong enough to prove or disprove anything.

Loved Emily's argument. She had her facts, her research and she reasoned well. Marci tried to argue from emotive stand point, but i think people have had enough of mass hysteria

Knowing that reporting someone could end up putting that person on a registry that could label them for life may deter someone from reporting the offense. The victim may not want such a punishment handed out. Js

Recidivism is low with sex offenders. Less than 5% re-offend a sex crime (national scale) and yes Registries do more harm than good. 1. The public shouldn't have access to them 2. It should be limited to law enforcement only with the registry requirements only when a sex offender moves residential locations and/or have major cosmetic changes (like transitioning, or getting tattoos removed, etc). Arguing no risk exists if false as 5% re-offend, that's 5 out of every 100 molests again. The fact is, there has never been a legislative push and approval by states for reclassifying/decriminalizing sex offenses until epstein's death. The FBI got that lil black book and now all these powerful politicians are pushing to remove and change laws against sex offenders. They say it's coincidence, I say there's no such thing.

"In some states, there are children as young as 9 on the public registry." If a friggin' 9-year-old child can be labeled as a "sex offender". then the term "sex offender" is SO broad that it's functionally-meaningless!!!!!

I have one thing to ask. Why do they think it's worse to think people who become on the list is worse than someone who killed somebody? If you killed someone and server your time then you should put people who killed other people on a list also because that affect people lives also

The older lady must have had some really bad traumatizing even in her life

Marcy only wants to talk about the most insane sex offender cases there are in order to make her point. Meanwhile, people who make one mistake and truly wouldn't ever let it happen again have to suffer. Even though the victim isn't even traumatized. Stop reaching....

Hamilton: "For the sex assault victim, they see it differently." Indeed they do. How differently? Well, Kate Winslet started being "assaulted" (using Marci's definition) by Stephen Tredre when she was 15 and he was 28, and she looks back on this by calling him "the love of my life"! She skipped the world premiere of _Titanic_ to attend his memorial after he died of cancer.

Marcy is right we do have to protect our children but having a registry is not doing anything it's just a waste of research resources that can be put into use in better treatment of sex offenders to stop them from doing what they're doing.

Pretty,much the registration isn't really helping anyone. Some use it to harass, harm, destroy property of, or just outright kill sex offenders. It's not good at all for those who really are no threat and just made a mistake. They didn't know, we're placed on there because of something stupid like urinating in public which is stupid yet not worth beibg put on a registry, they got busted from online chats from social media where they didn't know the true age, or someone got the wrong idea about what was going on. I'll admit there are just a small group of people who really should be watched and on the registry yet not everyone who haven't done wrong for years. It's not right to continue to punish them years after paying theur debt and putting them under insane restrictions where they end up going back to prison over sone stupid technicality issue like finding a place to stay that's not so many yards ECT from specific places. There are many who are remorseful and are struggling so hard with the label of sex offender as well as being on the registry for some undetermined amount of time. I've seen many vids and each one practically has a murderer getting off easier than a sex offender who might have only had a few pictures, served their time, yet no matter how many years go by of not commiting any other crime at all, they are still treated worse than a murderer by society. The fear and absolute terror of being on the registry then thinking you just put yourself where someone could come burn your place of living just to get you to leave the state. Walking to your car from your job and having soneone beat you up because they saw where you worked on the registry. It's all wrong and needs to stop. Only thise with very serious sex offenses should be on the registry. Those with low level stuff like possession of a few pictures and urinating in public shouldn't have to be on that list at all nor be branded a sex offender. Those types of crimes should just be misdemeanors all the time. This is my opinion and to each their own thoughts. Hate me if you want but I've watched enough vids as well as read enough articles to know that it's just wrong to treat a human being who's labeled a sex offender worse than a murderer. Giving a murderer the ability to reintegrate into society verses someone who is branded a sex offender because of something as small as urinating on a tree in public is just wrong.

Because someone living in a certain area was a registered sex offender in another state means “they are sexually abusing children in my neighborhood.” Clear example of fear-mongering. The police didn’t do anything. Why? THE PERSON WAS NOT PERPETRATING ANY CRIMES.

No children should be on the registry

Likelyhood of repeat offense probably depends on WHY you are on the registry. For example: Peeing in public can put you on the registry in Michigan. Someone who has put their frat party days behind them probably would be less likely to pee on the side of a building.

Yes abolish about 90% of the list and keep the worst on the list. Everyone else should be subjected to the possibility of being on the list for life if done more than once.

restorative justice. also moving to another state should be an option.

Emily Horowitz crushed this debate

This would have been more interesting if Marci had actually addressed the resolution of the debate.

(question starts 37:35 here for full context) Marcy, you said (essentially) at 38:58 that knowing the sex offenders names decreases the likelihood of new victims, but at 39:18 you said “It’s true that sex offenses against children in the quantum are declining, that is true”. How does the M.O of sex offenders, change the fact, that you just admitted, that sex offenses against children in the quantum are declining? Unless you are going to give evidence that the reason for the decline is exclusively because of the existence of the registries, I think you just defeated your own argument. Marcy, regardless of where she actually lies on the political spectrum, uses a lot of the lefts tactics. 1. She constantly tries to steer the questions into something involving children, a subject that most people feel so passionate about that they forget things like fact and reason and go with pure emotion. 2. She constantly uses the appeal to authority fallacy, AKA argument from authority, to dispute the opponent despite not actually giving any facts even when it was asked for by someone in the crowd.

My biggest problem with the registry atm, is that I don't know if the people in my neighborhood are child predators or someone who got caught having sex in thier car. How are parents supposed to differentiate the multiple ways to get on the registry in order to help protect our kids. It's like the government recording all of our emails and phone calls to find terrorism. By diluting the pool with nonsense you make it harder to find the terrorist.

Someone put marcy on the registration for 6 months let's see what her tune is after that

I have empathy for people dealing with the registry

In April 2016 there was an excellent article in Readers Digest written by a former state senator who did time in a federal prison. He concluded the article with :"The criminal justice system in this country is not broken. It is instead a well oiled machine meant to keep people out of the economic mainstream." Think about it. When you cannot provide for yourself the government has to provide for you. That means employment for bureaucrats and a need for the government to keep sucking tax dollars out of the working public. California pushed 100,000 people off of the registry because the California government could no longer afford to monitor the overwhelming number of sex offenders.

Watch till the end when Marcy sees her propaganda won't work forever. That is sheer disappointment in her eyes.